Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   The ridiculous 2-D sphere of Mathematical Physics

    The mathematicians like to argue that a sphere is not a 3-D object but a single, wrapped-around 2-D surface. Hence, a sphere is
    really a 2-D analogy of a 3-D Universe whereas a 3-D surface would be an analogy of a 4-D Universe.

    You what?

    Wright explains in a little more detail for those who fail to follow this irrational ‘logic:’

    “ remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is
      supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that
      there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into. [1] …But the balloon
      analogy is a 2-dimensional model, and the center of the balloon and the space
      around are not part of the 2-dimensional Universe. In our 3-dimensional Universe,
      these points could only be reached by traveling in a 4th spatial dimension (not
      the time dimension of 4-D spacetime), but there is no evidence that this dimension
      exists.”  [2]

    “ The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a
      three-dimensional situation. The way you're supposed to think about the balloon
      analogy is that everything which happens in two dimensions on the balloon's
      surface actually happens in three dimensions in the universe. For example, the
      balloon's surface ‘stretches’ proportionally in TWO directions as the balloon gets
      blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in THREE directions. The third
      dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the
      balloon's surface and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the equiva-
      lent of the FOURTH dimension in our universe.”  [3]

    Sounds complicated?

    Not really! The correct term is inconsistent, specifically, the inconsistent use of the word dimension. From a physical
    perspective, Wright and Rothstein are describing a circle and not a sphere. Allow me to explain. When relativists allege
    that a sphere is 2-D, they have stealthily switched to the mathematical notion of dimension again. They are no longer
    talking about the length, width, and height of a static geometric figure. They are now talking about the number of numbers
    (coordinates) needed in relativity to locate a point on the surface of a sphere. An additional ‘dimension’, which they call
    time, is necessary to conceptualize the expansion of a balloon. Hence, two spatial dimensions (of the surface of the
    sphere, meaning coordinates needed to locate a point) plus one temporal 'dimension' rounds out the relativistic version
    of a 3-D object. Had we started our experiment with a 3-D surface – meaning that the initial object requires three numbers
    to specify a point on its ‘surface’ – the inflating entity would have resulted in a 4-D object.

    In other words, according to the idiots of relativity, the problem is not visualizing a 3-D surface (i.e., a 3-D object) expanding
    through 1-D time. The problem is visualizing a 3-D surface to begin with! Since no one can even imagine a surface in which
    a point can be specified with 3 spatial coordinates, we limited mortals have no choice but to settle for an analogy. Einstein
    realized this back in 1921:

    “ it is probable that our three-dimensional space is also approximately spherical…
      Now this is the place where the reader's imagination boggles. ‘Nobody can imagine
      this thing,'’ he cries indignantly. ‘It can be said, but cannot be thought. I can repre-
      sent to myself a spherical surface well enough, but nothing analogous to it in three
      dimensions.’…We must try to surmount this barrier in the mind, and the patient
      reader will see that it is by no means a particularly difficult task. For this purpose
      we will first give our attention once more to the geometry of two-dimensional
      spherical surfaces.”   [4]

    […and this is where the master takes you on a trip to Flatland!]

    “ Whereas a 2-sphere is a smooth 2-dimensional surface, a 3-sphere is an object
      with three dimensions”   [5]

    [If a 3-sphere is an object, why don’t you draw it on your website? An object is that
    which has shape.]

    Now you understand why relativists must resort to analogies.

    Of course, the underhanded trick of this relativistic analogy is to regard the sphere as both a 2-D and a 3-D object

    “ Circle represents three-dimensional sphere.” (Fig. 7.11, p. 325)  [6]

    Note that this 2-D version invokes mathematical 'dimensions' (the number of coordinates needed to locate a point on the
    surface of the sphere). It makes the most of the fact that in Mathematics you need two number lines to locate a point on a
    circle (plane) as well as on the surface of a sphere (solid). The 3-D version treats the sphere strictly as a solid (length,
    width, and height). Now factor in time (the expansion of the 2-D ‘surface’ of the sphere). The 2-D mathematical version
    now simulates the 3-D solid. But what if it took 3 spatial coordinates to locate a point on the surface of the original object
    instead of 2? In other words, what if there was a circle (i.e., a plane) that required you to use 3 spatial coordinates to locate
    a point on it? Of course, this monster is surrealistic and unimaginable. It is not unimaginable because of our limited
    capabilities as humans. It is unimaginable because the idiot of relativity is retroactively amending several strategic
    definitions to make his point: coordinate, dimension, number line, figure, circle, plane, surface, solid, and sphere.
In relativity, a
solid may be 2-D

    So let’s explore whether this mumble-jumble dimensional poppycock of our mathematicians holds its ground. Let's replace
    the sphere with a cube. A cube simplifies the discussion because the idiots of relativity get hopelessly confused with spheres.
    In the ludicrous world of Mathematical Physics a sphere may have anywhere from one to four dimensions depending on
    whether you talk to a geometer, a topologist, or a mathematician. The inconsistent notions and definitions that the mathematical
    physicists have developed muddle the discussion and allow them to parry all attacks. Using a cube does not change the
    argument I will present here and won’t confuse the nitwits because, fortunately, here is one instance where they all agree.
    Relativists still regard a cube to be a physical 3-D object (i.e., has length, width, and height).

    Now if a 3-D cube expands 'through' time, will we end up with a 4-D object or with a bigger 3-D cube? How many coordinates,
    dimensions, or vectors does it take a room full of relativists to locate a point on the entire surface of a cube anyway? Don’t we
    need 3 numbers to locate a point on a cube? In what way is the surface of a cube dimensionally different from that of a sphere?
    I won’t vouch for Mathematics, but in Physics, whether a point sits on a sphere or on a cube, it is always crossed by three
    dimensions (length, width, and height) and coordinates (longitude, latitude, and altitude). If you want to add time, go ahead.
    It will in no way change the shape of a sphere or of a cube, because if it does, by definition we are no longer talking about
    spheres or cubes. If the inclusion of time does not prevent a relativist from illustrating his alleged unimaginable cube, why
    would time prevent visualization of space-time? Isn't space-time just an expanding sphere? Shouldn't there simply be a
    sphere in every frame of the movie?

    You might suspect by now that I am creating a strawman in order to knock relativity down easily. Surely a relativist would
    not be such a fool as to confuse a larger cube with a 4-D hypersphere or with space-time.

    Let’s see if Heidmann can put your concerns at rest:

    “ In relativity theory there are four dimensions…three of space and one of time, but it is
      impossible for our human senses fully to visualize what this means. Only through
      mathematics can we get down to a rigorous treatment.”[7]

    [What prevents Heidmann from visualizing a larger cube or a cube at different times?
     I invite those relativists who think like Heidmann to look at the figures here!!!!!!!. They will
     see with their own eyes the ‘4-D’ space-time (three spatial dimensions and one
     structurally irrelevant temporal ‘dimension’) that has eluded them all these years. No
     math, no analogies, no bull!]

    The reason that the mathematicians can’t figure out what is going on is due, again, to their inconsistent use of the word
    dimension. All mathematicians alive today confuse dimensions with coordinates and both of them with number lines.
    When a relativist alleges that it takes two numbers or dimensions or coordinates to locate a point on the surface of a
    sphere, he is really talking about number lines known as parallels and meridians. There are no dimensions, coordinates,
    or vectors in Mathematics. Mathematics has no use for qualitative concepts such as width, or latitude, or breadth.

    2.0   Substituting height with time

    To complicate matters, the birdbrains summarily and unjustifiably remove the coordinate called altitude (or, if you prefer,
    the dimension known as height, or the number line known as radius) – the one that extends from the center of the ball to
    its surface and which rational human beings call the radius:

    “ The distance from the center to the points on the sphere is called the radius of the
      sphere.”  [8]

    “ The other two spatial dimensions are ignored or, sometimes, one of them is indi-
      cated by perspective. (These are called space-time diagrams”   [9]

    “ One just politely ignores the y and z co-ordinates, 4-dimensional paper and black-
      boards being in short supply at most universities.” [10]

    [Then, the mathematicians also ask you to accept this surrealistic scenario in lieu of
    intuition. They call it ‘science’]

    To be able to represent conditions graphically we suppress one space-co-ordinate,
      assuming space to be only two dimensional, a Euclidean plane.” (p. 150)  [11]

    [So what does Weyl replace his ‘space-co-ordinate’ with? Why of course! With the
    ‘dimension’ of time…]

    “ Every world-displacement x has a definite duration t(x) = t (this takes the place of
      ‘height’ in our geometrical argument)” (p. 158-159) [11]

    [Now you know why Herr Hermann is heralded as a genius!]

    In other words, the mathematicians flatten the sphere into a circle, but continue calling it a sphere.

    " In full three-dimensional space this would be a sphere moving outwards at speed c
      -- the spherical wave-front of the light -- but here we are suppressing the spatial
      direction y, so we just get a circle" (p. 194) [12]

    In this way, the mathematicians get the best of both worlds, the dualities the idiots perpetually thrive on. They have a
    2-D plane (circle) and a 3-D solid (sphere) condensed into one. They point to a sphere and ask you to make believe that
    it only has two dimensions. This is necessary, they say, because they need the spot to make room for the axis of time.
    The lunatics are effectively substituting the static line radius (measured in meters) with a dynamic concept measured in
    seconds. They are replacing a photograph with a movie.

    Actually, the mathematicians are not talking about coordinates or dimensions, but about number lines known as parallels
    and meridians. The morons have squashed the globe and are now inadvertently dealing with a Mercator Projection.  The
    discussions with relativists routinely go like this, back and forth between physical (length, width, and height) and
    ‘mathematical’ (parallels, meridians, time) dimensions. It is with parallels, meridians, and time that the idiots of relativity
    ‘construct’ their 3-D ‘mathematical objects.’ Of course, it is not surprising therefore that, after all is said and done, the
    mathematicians can’t understand this unknowable universe in which we live. Only God seems to know the answers.

    Fig. 1
The idiots of Mathematics
say that a sphere is a
two-dimensional geometric
figure. In this subtle manner,
they get to treat this object
both as a sphere and as a
circle. Of course, if a sphere
can be 2-D as well as 3-D, we
can see how useful this
'geometric figure' can be to
The fans will eat you
alive when they find out
that you’ve been
playing ball with circles
all these years, Newt!
Mayan Bill
warning the mathematicians that they're not even in the
ball park


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008